DOCSLIB.ORG

Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines ESO INN TA D M E N P O I A T R A T T M R E O N P T S OF TRAN Minnesota Department of Transportation June 1996 JUNE 17, 1996 BIKEWAYS MANUAL summary CHAPTER SUMMARY CHAPTER TITLE 1 INTRODUCTION 2 DESIGN FACTORS AND MAINTENANCE 3 THE BICYCLE NETWORK PLANNING PROCESS 4 ON-ROAD DESIGNS 5 PATHS 6 BRIDGES AND GRADE SEPARATIONS 7 TRAFFIC CONTROLS 8 BICYCLE PARKING JUNE 17, 1996 BIKEWAYS MANUAL contents (1) Chapter One INTRODUCTION 1-1.0 PURPOSE 1-2.0 POLICY AND GOALS 1-3.0 SCOPE 1-4.0 DEFINITIONS 1-5.0 THE TYPICAL BICYCLE, RIDER, AND DIMENSIONS 1-6.0 OPERATING SPACE 1-7.0 THE DESIGN BICYCLE 1-8.0 DESIGN APPROACH Chapter Two DESIGN FACTORS AND MAINTENANCE 2-1.0 GENERAL 2-2.0 SURFACE QUALITY AND UTILITY WORK 2-3.0 VEGETATION CONTROL Chapter Three THE BICYCLE NETWORK PLANNING PROCESS 3-1.0 GENERAL 3-2.0 DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY BICYCLE NETWORK PLAN 3-2.01 Establish Performance Criteria for the Bicycle Network 3-2.02 Inventory Existing System 3-2.03 Identify Bicycle Travel Corridors 3-2.04 Evaluate and Select Specific Route Alternatives 3-2.05 Design Treatments 3-2.05.01 Select Appropriate Facility Options 3-2.05.02 Factors Used to Determine Grade Separations (Tunnels and Bridges) 3-2.06 Evaluate the Finished Network Plan Using the Established Performance Criteria 3-2.07 Bicycle Parking and Security Chapter Four ON-ROAD DESIGNS 4-1.0 GENERAL 4-2.0 TYPES OF FACILITIES 4-2.01 Bicycle Lanes 4-2.02 Bicycles, Buses and Combination Bus/Bike Lanes contents (2) BIKEWAYS MANUAL JUNE 17, 1996 4-2.03 Shared Lanes 4-2.04 Wide Curb or Wide Outside Lanes 4-2.05 Shoulders 4-2.06 Traffic-Calmed Roadways 4-3.0 DESIGNING BICYCLE FACILITIES 4-4.0 PREPARING TO SELECT A DESIGN OPTION 4-4.01 What Types of Bicyclists is the Route Most Likely to Serve? 4-4.02 New Construction, Reconstruction and Retrofitting 4-4.03 Design Options to be Considered in Selecting the Appropriate Treatment 4-5.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND DESIGN FACTORS USED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE DESIGN TREATMENT 4-6.0 USING TABLES TO DETERMINE THE RECOMMENDED OPTION 4-7.0 TRAFFIC-CALMED ROADWAYS 4.7.01 Speed Humps 4-7.02 Chicanes 4-7.03 Pinch Points 4-7.04 Curb Extensions 4-7.05 Mini Round-a-bouts 4-7.06 Surface Alterations 4-7.07 Environmental Road Closures 4-7.08 Plugged, or No-entry Calming 4-7.09 Rumble Strips (traffic calming) 4-7.10 Transverse Bands 4-8.0 BYPASS LANES 4-9.0 CLIMBING LANES 4-10.0 RUMBLE STRIPS 4-11.0 DRAINAGE AND DRAINAGE GRATES 4-12.0 LIGHTING 4-13.0 ON-ROAD INTERSECTIONS 4-13.01 Shared Road Bikeway Treatments at Intersections 4-13.02 Bike Lane Treatments at Intersections 4-13.02.01 Bicycle Lanes and Left-Turning Bicycle Traffic 4-13.02.02 Bike Lane Continuation at T-intersections 4-13.02.03 At-grade Railroad Crossings JUNE 17, 1996 BIKEWAYS MANUAL contents (3) Chapter Five PATHS 5-1.0 GENERAL 5-2.0 LOCATING PATHS 5-3.0 SEPARATION BETWEEN PATH AND ROADWAY 5-3.01 Snow Storage in Separation Area 5-4.0 SEPARATING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS 5-5.0 DESIGN SPEED 5-6.0 HORIZONTAL CURVATURE AND SUPERELEVATION GRADES 5-7.0 GRADES 5-8.0 SIGHT DISTANCE 5-8.01 Safe Stopping Sight Distance 5-8.02 Sight Distance at Crest Vertical Curves 5-8.03 Sight Distance at Horizontal Curves 5-9.0 PATH WIDTHS AND CLEARANCES 5-10.0 STRUCTURAL SECTION 5-10.01 Foundation Preparation 5-10.02 Bituminous Structural Section 5-10.03 Concrete Structural Section 5-10.04 Aggregate Structural Section 5-10.05 Surface smoothness and maintenance 5-11 DRAINAGE 5-12 BARRIERS, RAILINGS, AND FENCES 5-13 LIGHTING 5-14.0 INTERSECTIONS 5-14.01 Path Intersections 5-14.02 Path and Motor Vehicle Intersections 5-14.03 Intersection Design 5-14.03.01 Crosswalk 5-14.03.02 Crosswalks and curbed pedestrian refuge islands or medians 5-14.03.03 Curb Designs and Arrangements 5-14.03.04 Controlling Motor Vehicle Access 5-14.03.05 One-way Paths and At-grade Signalized Intersections 5-14.03.06 At-grade Intersections Without Signals 5-14.03.07 Paths at Independent At-grade Crossings 5-14.03.08 Paths and At-grade Railroad Crossings contents (4) BIKEWAYS MANUAL JUNE 17, 1996 Chapter Six BRIDGES AND GRADE SEPARATIONS 6-1.0 GENERAL 6-2.0 HIGHWAY BRIDGES WITH BIKEWAYS 6-2.01 Retrofitting Bikeways and Bike Lanes on Existing Highway Bridges 6-3.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN OVERPASSES 6-4.0 BIKEWAY UNDER EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURES 6-5.0 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASSES AND TUNNELS Chapter Seven TRAFFIC CONTROLS 6-6.0 REST AREA OVERLOOKS 7-1.0 GENERAL 7-2.0 SIGNS 7-3.0 SIGNALS AND VEHICLE DETECTORS 7-3.01 Traffic-actuated Signals 7-3.02 Programmed Signals 7-4.0 PAVEMENT MARKINGS 7-5.0 OBJECT MARKINGS, DELINEATORS, CURBS, FENCES, AND BARRIERS 7-5.01 Object Markings 7-5.02 Delineation 7-5.03 Curbs and Medians 7-6.0 FENCES AND BARRIERS 7-6.01 Channelization Fences Chapter Eight BICYCLE PARKING 8-1.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 8-2.0 BICYCLE SECURITY LEVELS AND PARKING PRODUCTS JUNE 17, 1996 BIKEWAYS MANUAL 1(1) Chapter One INTRODUCTION 1-1.0 Purpose safe bicycling for transportation. Plan B: The Minnesota Comprehensive State Bicycle Plan provides a framework to The emphasis now being placed on bicycle transportation guide investments that will translate the needs of bicyclists into requires an understanding of bicycles, bicyclists, and safe realities. Mn/DOT accommodates bicyclists through its transportation facilities. The bicycle, when adequately planned multi-modal and intermodal actions and continues to encourage for and used, plays an important part in the overall the increased use and safety of bicycling. transportation system. Safe, convenient, and attractive facilities are essential to encourage safe bicycle driving. Bicycle trips are generally under 8 km and often occur in urbanized areas. 1-3.0 Scope Therefore, these guidelines emphasize increased use and safety in urban areas. This manual provides part of the information necessary for a safe bicycling environment. Facilities are one of several The purpose of this manual is to provide bicycle network elements essential to an overall bicycle program. Bicycle safety and facility planning and design guidelines that planners, and design, education and training, bicycle use encouragement, engineers and designers should follow, unless otherwise noted, and the application and enforcement of the rules of the road as to encourage increased use of the bicycle. To clarify the they pertain to bicyclists are further addressed in Plan B: The meanings of "shall", "should" and "may" used in these Minnesota Comprehensive State Bicycle Plan, and in other guidelines, the following definitions apply: resources. This manual provides guidelines for facilities. 1. SHALL--A mandatory condition. Where certain requirements in design or application are described 1-4.0 Definitions with the "shall" stipulation, it is mandatory when an installation is made that these requirements be met. BICYCLE - "Bicycle" means every device propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride, having 2. SHOULD--An advisory condition. Where the word two tandem wheels except scooters and similar devices, and "should" is used, it is considered to be advisable usage, including any device generally recognized as a bicycle recommended but not mandatory. though equipped with two front or rear wheels. (MN 169.01 Subd. 51) (Considered a vehicle by MN Statute 169.01 3. MAY--A permissive condition. No requirement for Subd. 2, MN 169.222 Subd. 1). design or application is intended. AVERAGE BICYCLISTS - The Design Bicyclists Because flexibility is provided, these guidelines permit comprised of both Group B (Basic Bicyclists) and Group C improvements to be made that will result in greater uniformity (Children). of geometrics over major lengths of roadways and bikeways. BICYCLE FACILITIES - A general term denoting These guidelines have been developed based on engineering improvements and provisions made by public agencies to practices and the state of the practice in transportation and accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking should be used to the maximum extent possible. However, as facilities, bikeways, bikeways maps, and shared roadways with all projects, use judgment in their application. The not specifically designated for bicycle use. provisions for bicycle travel are consistent with standard roadway engineering practices. These guidelines should be used BICYCLE LANE (BIKE LANE) - "Bicycle Lane" means in conjunction with other chapters in the Mn/DOT Road Design a portion of a roadway or shoulder designed for exclusive Manuals and other resources. or preferential use by people using bicycles. Bicycle lanes are to be distinguished from the portion of the roadway or shoulder used for motor vehicle traffic by physical barrier, 1-2.0 Policy and Goals striping, marking, or other similar device. (MN 169.01 Subd. 70) U.S. Department of Transportation goals include doubling bicycle and pedestrian use while simultaneously reducing by BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN LANE - A portion of a roadway 10% the number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed and injured designated for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles in traffic crashes. Minnesota and The Minnesota Department of and pedestrians. Transportation (Mn/DOT) support these goals and have developed similar policies and goals to help ensure increased, 1(2) BIKEWAYS MANUAL JUNE 17, 1996 BICYCLE NETWORK - A continuous system of bikeways RIGHTS OF WAY--A general term denoting land, and roadways in a region or municipality.
Recommended publications
  • 2. Basic Roadway Improvements the Street System Provides the Basic Network for Bicycle Travel

    2. Basic Roadway Improvements the Street System Provides the Basic Network for Bicycle Travel

    Figure 2-1: Many low-volume resi- YES dential streets need only the most basic improve- ments to make them more ridable. 2. Basic Roadway Improvements The street system provides the basic network for bicycle travel. Other ele- ments (e.g., bike lanes and paths) supplement this system. To make most streets work for bicyclists, basic improvements may be needed. Such things as safe railroad crossings, traffic signals that work for bicyclists, and street networks that connect benefit bicyclists and make more bicycle trips possible and likely. 2.1 Roadway types While the most basic improvements are appropriate for all categories of street, some improvements are most appropriate for certain categories. In a typical community, streets types range from quiet residential streets, to minor collector streets, to major arterials, and highways or expressways. Figure 2-2: Long blocks and a lack 2.1.1 Residential streets of connectivity On quiet residential streets with little traffic and slow speeds (fig. 2-1), make trips longer bicyclists and motorists can generally co-exist with little difficulty. Such and discourage streets seldom need bike lanes. Only the most basic improvements may bicycling for pur- poseful trips. be required, for instance: • bicycle-safe drainage grates • proper sight distance at intersections • smooth pavement and proper maintenance One additional factor that may need attention is connectivity. Providing bicycle linkages between residential streets and nearby commercial areas or adjacent neighborhoods can significantly improve bicycling conditions. In many communi- 2-1 Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook ties, newer parts of town tend to have dis- Figure 2-3: Bicycle- continuous street networks that require bicy- pedestrian connec- clists, pedestrians, and motorists to travel a tions like that long distance to get to a nearby destination shown can provide (fig.
  • Bus & Motorcoach News

    Bus & Motorcoach News

    May 1, 2007 WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE BUS INDUSTRY Transit agencies lambaste charter rules proposal WASHINGTON — Disgrunt- Most of the rest are from pri- for public transit agencies, which While the formal comments led pubic transit operators from vate motorcoach operators who have been the subject of much con- filed by the transit agencies with Charter comments across the country have inundated also have an important stake in the troversy and disputes between pri- the FTA zeroed in on a number of the Federal Transit Administration rules that regulate the type of char- vate and public carriers. issues, their harshest words were available on Web with complaints about the agency’s ters public transit systems can pro- Many of the measures in the directed at the definition of charter WASHINGTON — Upwards of proposed charter bus regulations. vide. proposal came from a joint com- service, which they said would 300 letters, many of them 6-to-10 Of the nearly 300 letters and “We’ve got our work cut out for mittee of representatives of public severely limit their ability to pro- pages long, have been sent to the messages sent to the federal agency us,” noted an FTA attorney who transit operators and private vide shuttle service for many of the Federal Transit Administration, com- in response to its call for comments will help review the materials motorcoach carriers who took part community events that take place menting on its proposed rules for on the proposed rules changes, received during the two-month in a series of negotiated-rule-mak- in their communities each year.
  • Designating Scenic Bikeways: a Framework for Rural Road Owners

    Designating Scenic Bikeways: a Framework for Rural Road Owners

    Designating Scenic Bikeways: A Framework for Rural Road Owners Publication No. FHWA-FLH-19-004 June 2019 FOREWARD The Federal Lands Highway (FLH) promotes development and deployment of applied research and technology applicable to solving transportation related issues on Federal Lands. The FLH provides technology delivery, innovative solutions, recommended best practices, and related information and knowledge sharing to Federal Agencies, Tribal Governments, and other offices within the FHWA. The objective of this project was to develop a resource to help road owners navigate the Oregon Scenic Bikeway Designation Process. In addition to helping road owners in Oregon, it was the intent of the project that the resource be useful to road owners across the country who are similarly involved with bikeway designation. The resulting Designating Scenic Bikeways: A Framework for Rural Road Owners is a toolkit intended to assist land management agencies, road owners, and proponent groups to communicate and work together in a positive way to develop bikeways. The project included a literature review covering rural road safety, bikeway designation, and liability of bikeway designation. A Technical Advisory Committee guided the work and participated in three bicycle road safety site visits in Oregon to better understand specific issues facing road owners. Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.
  • Literature Review- Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic

    Literature Review- Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic

    Literature Review Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic July 2018 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. FHWA-SA-18-030 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Literature Review: Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic 2018 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Bill Schultheiss, Rebecca Sanders, Belinda Judelman, and Jesse Boudart (TDG); REPORT NO. Lauren Blackburn (VHB); Kristen Brookshire, Krista Nordback, and Libby Thomas (HSRC); Dick Van Veen and Mary Embry (MobyCON). 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Toole Design Group, LLC VHB 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300 DTFH61-16-D-00005 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Vienna, VA 22182 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE FHWA 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The Task Order Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) for this task was Tamara Redmon.
  • Evaluation of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders Or Widened Lanes Bert E

    Evaluation of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders Or Widened Lanes Bert E

    39 19. K. Y. Kung. A New Method in Correlation Study of vision of Pavements. Proc., 3rd International Con­ Pavement Deflection and Cracking. Proc., 2nd In­ ference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, ternational Conference on Structural Design of 1972, pp. 1188-1205. Asphalt Pavements, 1967, pp. 1037-1046. 20. P. H. Leger and P. Autret. The Use of Deflection Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Pavement Condi­ Measurements for the Structural Design and Super- tion Evaluation. Evaluation of Concrete Pavements With Tied Shoulders or Widened Lanes Bert E. Colley, Claire G. Ball, and Pichet Arriyavat, Portland Cement Association Field and laboratory pavements were instrumented and load tested to reducing pavement performance, Because of this prob­ evaluate the effect of widened lanes, concrete shoulders, and slab thick­ lem, several states have installed costly longitudinal ness on measured strains and deflectfons. Eight slabs were tested in the and transverse drainage systems. Thus, concrete field and two in the laboratory. Pavement slabs were 203, 229, or 254 shoulders and widened lanes have the potential for curing mm (8, 9, or 10 in) thick. Other major design variables included the width of lane widening, the presence or absence of dowels or of a con­ many drainage problems as well as providing additional crete shoulder, joint spacing, and the type of shoulder joint construc­ slab strength. tion. Generally, there was good agreement between measured strains and Many design features contribute to pavement life. values calculated by using Westergaard's theoretical equations. Concrete The effect of some of these features can be evaluated shoulders were effective in reducing the magnitude of measured strains analytically.
  • Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Network Data Catalog

    Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Network Data Catalog

    Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Network Data Catalog Created by Institute for Transportation Research and Education Bicycle and Pedestrian Program For North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation January 21, 2016 JANUARY 2016 PBIN DATA CATALOG PBIN Data Catalog Each dataset provides a consistent set of attribute fields on existing bicycle, pedestrian, and shared-use path data for use in asset management as well as proposed data for use in planning and project development by PGI awarded communities. Where applicable, fields or attributes marked with an asterisk (*) are required data for NCDOT Planning Grant Initiative (PGI) communities to collect and/or update as a condition of award. PGI communities should consider including additional fields or attributes from the Data Catalog when inventorying focus areas or corridors, as identified through the plan development process. The data catalog is broken up into three sections: 1. BICYCLE ASSETS The Bike_Fac_Linear feature class includes polyline data on existing and proposed facilities such as bike lanes, bike routes, bicycle boulevards, and paved shoulders. It also includes information on surface condition, facility width, slope, and rumble strips. The Bike_Fac_Point feature class includes polyline data on existing and proposed facilities such as bike parking, crossing improvement, bike boxes, bike share kiosks, and bike detection loops. It also includes information on bicycle-oriented signage and hazardous grates. It also includes information on surface condition, facility width, slope, and rumble strips. The Ped_Fac_Linear feature class includes polyline data on existing and proposed facilities such as sidewalks and other types of footpaths. It includes information on material, facility width, buffer, buffer width and slope.
  • Mar.-Apr.2020 Highlites

    Mar.-Apr.2020 Highlites

    Prospect Senior Center 6 Center Street Prospect, CT 06712 (203)758-5300 (203)758-3837 Fax Lucy Smegielski Mar.-Apr.2020 Director - Editor Municipal Agent Highlites Town of Prospect STAFF Lorraine Lori Susan Lirene Melody Matt Maglaris Anderson DaSilva Lorensen Heitz Kalitta From the Director… Dear Members… I believe in being upfront and addressing things head-on. Therefore, I am using this plat- form to address some issues that have come to my attention. Since the cost for out-of-town memberships to our Senior Center went up in January 2020, there have been a few miscon- ceptions that have come to my attention. First and foremost, the one rumor that I would definitely like to address is the story going around that the Prospect Town Council raised the dues of our out-of-town members because they are trying to “get rid” of the non-residents that come here. The story goes that the Town Council is trying to keep our Senior Center strictly for Prospect residents only. Nothing could be further from the truth. I value the out-of-town members who come here. I feel they have contributed significantly to the growth of our Senior Center. Many of these members run programs here and volun- teer in a number of different capacities. They are my lifeline and help me in ways that I could never repay them for. I and the Town Council members would never want to “get rid” of them. I will tell you point blank why the Town Council decided to raise membership dues for out- of-town members.
  • FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

    FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide

    BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE FEBRUARY 2019 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED February 2019 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. FUNDING NUMBERS Bikeway Selection Guide NA 6. AUTHORS 5b. CONTRACT NUMBER Schultheiss, Bill; Goodman, Dan; Blackburn, Lauren; DTFH61-16-D-00005 Wood, Adam; Reed, Dan; Elbech, Mary 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION VHB, 940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 REPORT NUMBER Raleigh, NC 27606 NA Toole Design Group, 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Mobycon - North America, Durham, NC 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AND ADDRESS(ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Tamara Redmon FHWA-SA-18-077 Project Manager, Office of Safety Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: NA https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike 13. ABSTRACT This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade- offs relating to the selection of bikeway types. This report highlights linkages between the bikeway selection process and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors and considerations in a practical process- oriented way. It draws on research where available and emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Bike, bicycle, bikeway, multimodal, networks, 52 active transportation, low stress networks 16. PRICE CODE NA 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20.
  • Appendix a Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines

    Appendix a Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines

    Riverton Active Transportation Master Plan Appendix A Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines 2015 PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design 8 Broadway Salt Lake City, UT 84111 DRAFT Appendix A: Bicycle and Trail Design Guidelines Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................1 Design Needs of Pedestrians ....................................................................................................................................................4 Design Needs of Bicyclists ..........................................................................................................................................................6 Bicycle Facility Selection Guidelines .......................................................................................................................................9 Facility Classification ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Facility Continua ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Bicycle Facility Contextual Guidance ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Shared Roadways ..........................................................................................................................................................................13
  • Impact Analysis of a Potential Mbta Fare Increase

    Impact Analysis of a Potential Mbta Fare Increase

    TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: IMPACT ANALYSIS OF A POTENTIAL MBTA FARE INCREASE Prepared for Dennis A. DiZoglio, MBTA Asst. General Manager for Planning and Real Estate Prepared by Clinton S7Bench, Manager Transit Service Planning Contributing Staff Vijay Mahal Thomas Hum hrey Jonathan BelcR er Rama Karamalaputi Grace King Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is composed of state and regional agencies and authorities, and local governments August 27,2003 INTRODUCTION CTPS has conducted a Fare Increase Impacts Analysis to assist the MBTA Board of Directors in determining the following impacts of the proposed 2004 fare increase: Revenue and Ridership Impacts -- Q- Air Quality Impacts Environmental Justice Impacts Service Reductions In Lieu of a Fare Increase This memorandum will describe our findings on each of these issues in the sections below. Substantial portions of this text were provided by Vijay Mahal, Manager of Transportation Systems Analysis, and Thomas J. Humphrey and Jonathan Belcher, both of the Transit Service Planning Group. REVENUE AND RIDERSHIP IMPACTS Explanation of Fare Elasticity Fares are one of many factors that influence the level of ridership on transit services. Fare elasticity is the measure of the expected or observed rate of change in ridership relative to a change in fares if all other factors remain constant. For example, an elasticity of -0.3 indicates that for every 1%increase in fares, a ridership decrease of 0.3% would be expected. Conversely, with the same elasticity a 1%fare reduction would be expected to increase ridership by 0.3%. Ridership and revenue changes for each mode as the result of a fare increase are calculated using the following formulas: 1) A ridership = ridership ,,, x elasticity factor x O/o increase in fare + 100 2) A revenue = (ridership ,,, + A ridership) x new fare - (ridership ,,, x old fare) For example, with an initial ridership of 1,000 passengers a day and a fare of $1.00, revenue would be $1,000.
  • Public Transit Office Department of Transportation State of Florida

    Public Transit Office Department of Transportation State of Florida

    7/28/2017 5:19:20 PM TRANSIT FACILITIES GUIDELINES Department ofTransportation Public TransitOffice State ofFlorida STREETSIDE BUSSTOP LOCATIONS TRANSIT FACILITIESGUIDELINES & DESIGN TYPES SHEET CS NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS STREETSIDE BUS STOP LOCATIONS & DESIGN TYPES 1 of 41 STREETSIDE COMBINATION BUS STOP LOCATIONS 2 of 41 BUS STOP LOCATION RELATIVE TO ACCESS POINTS 3 of 41 BUS STOP LOCATION RELATIVE TO RAILROAD CROSSING 4 of 41 BUS STOP LANDING PADS AND SIGNAGE 5 of 41 BUS SHELTER DETAILS 6 of 41 CLOSED BUS BAY LAYOUT URBAN/CURB & GUTTER 7 of 41 CLOSED BUS BAY LAYOUT RURAL/SHOULDER 8 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS FACILITY DECISION TREE 9 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS STOPS 10 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS BAYS WITH ON STREET PARKING 11 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS BAYS WITH RIGHT TURN LANE 12 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS BAYS/STOPS 13 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS BAYS/STOPS 14 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS FACILITY DECISION TREE 15 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS BAYS WITH RIGHT TURN LANE 16 of 41 FAR SIDE CLOSED BUS BAYS WITH RIGHT TURN LANE 17 of 41 FAR SIDE NUB/BULB WITH ON STREET PARKING 18 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS BAYS 19 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS BAYS/STOPS 20 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS FACILITY DECISION TREE 21 of 41 MID-BLOCK DETAILS 22 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS STOPS WITH ON STREET PARKING 23 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS BAYS/STOPS 24 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS BAYS/STOPS 25 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS STOPS 26 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS BAYS/STOPS 27 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 28 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 29 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 30 of 41 NEAR SIDE ISOLATED BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 31 of 41 FAR SIDE ISOLATED BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 32 of 41 MID-BLOCK ISOLATED BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 33 of 41 BOARDING AND ALIGHTING AREA DETAIL 34 of 41 BOARDING AND ALIGHTING AREA DETAIL 35 of 41 OFF STREET HALF SAW TOOTH BUS BAY 36 of 41 CONCURRENT FLOW BUS LANES MID-BLOCK 37 of 41 CONTRA-FLOW BUS LANES MID-BLOCK 38 of 41 BUSWAY MID-BLOCK 39 of 41 EXCLUSIVE BUSWAY 40 of 41 BUS-ON-SHOULDER OPERATIONS UNIT ERUPTED FLOW HIGHWAY 41 of 41 M P 8 4 : 9 1 : 5 7 1 0 2 / 8 2 / 7 SHEET NO.
  • Th E V O Lvo G Ro U P 2 0

    Th E V O Lvo G Ro U P 2 0

    THE VOLVO GROUP ANNUAL REPORT 2012 The V olvo olvo G roup 2012 TOGETHER WE MOVE THE WORLD www.volvogroup.com A Global Group 2 CEO comment TOGETHER WE MOVE THE OperatiNG coNteXT 4 Future transport needs StrategY 8 Strategic approach BUsiNess model 22 Product offering WORLD 28 World-class services 30 A high-performing organization Without the products and services of the Volvo 32 Industrial structure Group the societies where many of us live 34 Production 35 Responsible sourcing would not function. Like lifeblood, our trucks, GroUP PerformaNce buses, engines and construction equipment are 36 Global strength involved in many of the functions that most of 38 Development by continent − Europe us rely on every day. 40 Focus new Volvo FH 42 Development by continent − North America For instance, one in seven meals eaten in 44 Development by continent − South America Europe reaches the consumers thanks to trucks 46 Focus Peru 48 Development by continent − Asia from the Volvo Group rolling on the roads of the 50 Focus Dongfeng continent. Buses are the most common type of 52 Focus Africa public transportation in the world, helping many Board of Directors’ report people to reach work, school, vacations, friends 56 Significant events and family. If all the Volvo buses in the world were 58 Trucks to start at the same time, they would transport 60 Buses more than 10 million people. Our construction 62 Construction equipment 64 Volvo Penta machines are used when building roads, houses, 66 Volvo Financial Services hospitals, airports, railroads, factories, offices, 68 Financial management shopping centers and recreational facilities.